TomRiddle
If you have 1D which is just a line; you can only get from one end to the other by touching the middle. But if you add the 2ND dimension, you can get from one point to another on that line without touching a point between. The same scenario applys to 2D and 3D respectively. So if you wanted to get, for example, from under the bed to ontop without touching any other point, you could utilize the fourth spatial dimension. Am I correct in saying this???
Robittybob1
QUOTE (TomRiddle+Dec 29 2011, 02:30 AM)
If you have 1D which is just a line; you can only get from one end to the other by touching the middle. But if you add the 2ND dimension, you can get from one point to another on that line without touching a point between. The same scenario applies to 2D and 3D respectively. So if you wanted to get, for example, from under the bed to on top without touching any other point, you could utilize the fourth spatial dimension. Am I correct in saying this???

I don't think you are forced to sue the 4th dimension. Bed in a room which is a 3 D space. You can get from under the bed to on top of the bed without exiting the room, so no it isn't always true.
I have heard of "Time warp" where you go from under the bed in the present but climb into a bed in the centuries past. Then you have used the 4th dimension.
AlexG
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 28 2011, 09:57 PM)
I have heard of "Time warp" where you go from under the bed in the present but climb into a bed in the centuries past. Then you have used the 4th dimension.

Stupid doesn't even begin to describe it.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (AlexG+Dec 29 2011, 04:06 AM)
Stupid doesn't even begin to describe it.

How would I be able to describe it? All I know about this is what I have previously seen in what was supposedly a true documentary that covered this situation. I have not experienced it myself.

Are you saying you could describe these oddball scenarios better? Have a go then!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_warp_(science_fiction)
Time Warp.
The terms time warp, space warp and time-space warp are commonly used in science fiction. They sometimes refer to Einstein's theory that time and space form a continuum which bends, folds or warps from the observer's point of view, relative to such factors as movement or gravitation, but are also used in reference to more fantastic notions of discontinuities or other irregularities in spacetime not based on real-world science.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2...ex-around-earth
NASA Gravity Experiment Finds Space-Time Vortex Around Earth, Like a Vat of Fourth-Dimensional Molasses

Interesting article, but no the time of warp I was thinking of.
TomRiddle
I understand your time warp theory. But I wasn't exactly referring to timE. I know we can't exactly imagine another spatial dimension and that's why I used the examples. So is it possible to travel into the 4TH SPACIAL dimension to essentially teleport from one point in a 3D world to another point in that same world..
Robittybob1
This was the one I saw years back - Time slip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_slip
Time Slip
“The Vanishing Hotel
A widely-publicised case from October 1979, described in the ITV television series Strange But True?[1], concerned the Simpsons and the Gisbys, two English married couples driving through France en route to a holiday in Spain. They claimed to have stayed overnight at a curiously old-fashioned hotel and decided to break their return journey at the same hotel but were unable to find it. Photographs taken during their stay, which were in the middle of a roll of film, were missing, even from the negative strips, when the pictures were developed.”
Robittybob1
QUOTE (TomRiddle+Dec 29 2011, 04:24 AM)
I understand your time warp theory. But I wasn't exactly referring to timE. I know we can't exactly imagine another spatial dimension and that's why I used the examples. So is it possible to travel into the 4TH SPACIAL dimension to essentially teleport from one point in a 3D world to another point in that same world..

There could be other spacial dimensions beyond the speed of light. When you are talking "Teleport" - you are talking other dimensions alright. I'll pass you over to Alex regarding that.
albert2
time is only a numerical sequence of change in a 3D quantum vacuum
time is not physical dimension
QUOTE (albert2+Dec 29 2011, 07:03 PM)
time is only a numerical sequence of change in a 3D quantum vacuum
time is not physical dimension

Drinking again Amtwit? ..... brain haemorrhage cocktail?
albert2
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Dec 29 2011, 08:20 PM)
Drinking again Amtwit? ..... brain haemorrhage cocktail?

lady give us one example that time we measure with clocks has physical dimension !

that clock run in airplane has lover rate than clock on the surface because some "time dimension" dilate !
QUOTE (albert2+Dec 29 2011, 08:36 PM)
lady give us one example that time we measure with clocks has physical dimension !

1 second = 3 x 10^5 km.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Dec 29 2011, 08:45 PM)
1 second = 3 x 10^5 km.

That was the rough estimate of a light second which is measure of distance not time.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 29 2011, 09:42 PM)
.

1 second = 3 x 10^5 km. [/QUOTE]

Nice try, LE, but.....

The 'physical dimension' equivalence for time you wrote there is an expression entirely dependent (both relatively and mathematically) on the other three physical spatial dimensions, without which your proffered example would be a mathematical expression without any physical meaning.

From the context to date, it appears albert2 is asking you to identify an 'independent' physical dimension for 'time' that is not 'derived' from the other 3 (spatial) dimensions.

Try again, mate! Cheers, LE.

.

...... so, you missed the point entirely;- why am I not suprised? ... 'cause you're an old deluded fuckwit perhaps?

QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 29 2011, 09:46 PM)
That was the rough estimate of a light second which is measure of distance not time.

Are not both one and the same, dumbass?
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Dec 29 2011, 10:48 PM)
Are not both one and the same, dumbass?

No they are not the same Dumbass!

That is like saying a light year is a measure of time. No its a measure of distance.
synthsin75
Nope, RC doesn't know what he's talking about.

You cannot derive a second from the speed of light without first defining a unit of time, as c is a speed which is:

c = d/t

1 second = 3 x 10^5 km should properly read:

c = 3 x 10^5 km/sec

Thus:

sec = c / 3 x 10^5 km

Neither the distance nor the time is removable from any working formula for a motion, as:

sec = (3 x 10^5 km/sec) / 3 x 10^5 km

You can never remove a predetermined unit of time from the right side of that equation.
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 29 2011, 08:38 PM)
Mate, you have serious contextual comprehension problems. Read my post to LE again....

....was to do with SPACE not time.

Before you again jump in to a discussion, for pity's sake do some proper 'due diligence' and read the whole context that applies. Your input, while interesting and educational in itself, had nothing to do with 'correcting' anythng I said in context to LE and his own obvious misunderstanding of the meaning/measurement implied by the term 'light second' etc.

Nope, just proves that LE was right about you not understanding, as anyone who knows anything about physics would realize that "1 second = 3 x 10^5 km" is how long it takes light to travel ~3 x 10^5 km. Which is stated mathematically as:

sec = c / 3 x 10^5 km

Yet again, you are using your MO of complaining about "context" and "due diligence" in a failed attempt to gloss over your ignorance. Just "quit it". You only affirm your ignorance every time you jump off on one of these justification tangents.

Granted, the trolls here don't realize that.

Hail RC, king of the trolls.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 30 2011, 01:02 AM)

You goofed, mate. Badly. You have just proved that Robbitybob1 and I both have understanding of the subject matter that is superior to yours.

.

Anyone who knows anything about physics would realize that "1 second = 3 x 10^5 km" is how long it takes light to travel ~3 x 10^5 km.

Guess you don't fit into this catergory, you ancient mouthfoaming cretin.

synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 29 2011, 10:51 PM)
Everybody (except LE it seems) knows that 'lightseconds' and 'lightyears' are 'length units' used for distances across space, not time per se.

And everyone, except you, seems to know that these "length units" cannot possibly be derived without time. And you verify that yourself, in your very next paragraph:

QUOTE
The time is ALREADY IMPLIED in the 'standard second/year' duration we apply and over which we observe light to travel during that second/year to a point that, by definition, is one 'lightsecond' or one 'lightyear distance away in space from its starting point in space.

That (bolded) is just restating what I said here:

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The time is ALREADY IMPLIED in the 'standard second/year' duration we apply and over which we observe light to travel during that second/year to a point that, by definition, is one 'lightsecond' or one 'lightyear distance away in space from its starting point in space.

That (bolded) is just restating what I said here:

sec = (3 x 10^5 km/sec) / 3 x 10^5 km

You can never remove a predetermined unit of time from the right side of that equation.

The requirement for time to derive any length unit from light, specifically means that you cannot have one without the other.

QUOTE

No-one was questioning at all what you mistakenly think was being questioned.

If you must 'correct' someone, go and 'correct' yourself, and stop pestering people with your gratuitous 'corrections'.

What is embarrassing is your MO of falsely impugning everyone's reading skills. You simply don't know enough science to realize it when someone is talking over your head. Just like every other troll. You'll also notice that, yet again, you are complaining about EXACTLY what you entered this thread to do (i.e. 'correct' someone). Hypocrite.
TomRiddle
.. Has this got anything to do with the original question now.
LE, if you are going to make pointless argument, f**k off.!
QUOTE (TomRiddle+Dec 30 2011, 05:10 AM)
LE, if you are going to make pointless argument, f**k off.!

You obviously rent your head out as an anvil;- stop it now! and squirm back to your widdle Harry Potter books, you filthy ugly little twerp.
TomRiddle
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Dec 30 2011, 03:23 PM)
You obviously rent your head out as an anvil;- stop it now! and squirm back to your widdle Harry Potter books, you filthy ugly little twerp.

Do you even have any idea how old I am??? And so what if I like the books? What exactly is your point in saying that. Just stop harassing everyone. You may not be wrong but everytime probably not just talking about what everyone else is. Youre just shameful.
Robittybob1
What could you tell us about these extra dimensions Tom?
TomRiddle
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 30 2011, 04:06 PM)
What could you tell us about these extra dimensions Tom?

I don't know a great deal about them, that's why I started this post, to learn more and to see if my current understanding was correct..
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 29 2011, 11:38 PM)

Oh my.

The original post was decrying LE's use of a space length/distance term incorrectly in answer to albert2's challenge. Go back and read the relevant exchange between albert2 and LE on that point. That is all I was addressing. Your 'assumptions' and 'corrections' are gratuitous in that context. They will remain so irrespective of what you prattle on about now. OK? So please quit this folderol you keep stirring up at the drop of a hat because of your 'personal' and 'non-contextual attitudes/readings of others' posts.

Yes, we get it. It is just completely over your head. I can only repeat what I said, which is conspicuously missing from your quote of my post:

"The requirement for time to derive any length unit from light, specifically means that you cannot have one without the other."
Robittybob1
QUOTE (TomRiddle+Dec 30 2011, 06:14 AM)
I don't know a great deal about them, that's why I started this post, to learn more and to see if my current understanding was correct..

Well have you told us all you know? It might give us a clue about what is going on.
synthsin75
QUOTE (TomRiddle+Dec 28 2011, 10:24 PM)
So is it possible to travel into the 4TH SPACIAL dimension to essentially teleport from one point in a 3D world to another point in that same world..

Only in sci-fi.
TomRiddle
QUOTE (synthsin75+Dec 30 2011, 04:29 PM)
Only in sci-fi.

Ok, so it isn't possible with today's technology or isn't possible full stop? If we were able to, what would happen to our 3D form? Would anything change?
AlexG
A dimension is just a direction in which you can move.

The usual three are forward-back, up-down, left-right (x, y, z axis). You can't move forward by going up or down and left or right. Similarly, if there were a 4th spatial dimension we could move in, we couldn't use movement in that direction to bypass movement in any of the other spatial dimensions.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 30 2011, 08:03 PM)
LE got some of his merciless mocking bounced back at him by Robbitybob1 when LE least expected it!

Yeah, really cut me up savage! .... you complete tongue-slaveringly geriatric buffoon.

synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 30 2011, 02:03 PM)
Oh lord, it's almost enough to drive a man to drink.

I just got through telling you that time is already implicit in the standard units we use to measure length in space in terms of lightyears/lightseconds. These standard units are already based on motion through space (of Earth along orbit around sun and light across distance of space).

You didn't tell me anything, as I've already pointed out that you only restated what I previously said:

QUOTE (me+)

sec = (3 x 10^5 km/sec) / 3 x 10^5 km

You can never remove a predetermined unit of time from the right side of that equation.

So either this was just too far over you head or you didn't exercise the "due diligence" you are continually accusing others of neglecting. So which is it??????????????

QUOTE
See, synthsin75. That was all that was involved in context, and it was AMUSING context, wherein LE (pretended in order to 'bait', I suspect) that he knew less than Albert2 and Robbitybob1 about that point. And it was all HILARIOUS. And in the meantime LE got some of his merciless mocking bounced back at him by Robbitybob1 when LE least expected it!

You're just far too dense. Both you and RB completely missed the time necessary to deriving a time standard from a length with light. Hell, you've even admitted as much above and you STILL can't pull your foot out of your mouth.

You're just a literal-minded simpleton. All you could manage to process was the literal length in LE's post instead of the real relationship it described. (At least RB knew the relationship, even if he didn't realize the necessity for time inherent in it.) And you've already agreed, twice now, that that length is determined by how far light travels in 1 second.

Just keep drinking, old fool. At least the spirits will keep you as jocular as you seem, regardless of how ridiculous you sound.
Robittybob1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-second
A light-second is a unit of length useful in astronomy, telecommunications and relativistic physics. It is defined as the distance that light travels in free space in one second, and is equal to exactly 299,792,458 metres. It is just over 186,000 miles and almost 109 feet.
Just as the second forms the basis for other units of time, the light-second can form the basis for other units of length, ranging from the light-nanosecond (just under one U.S. or imperial foot) to the light-minute, light-hour and light-day, which are sometimes used in popular science publications. The more commonly-used light-year is also presently defined to be equal to precisely 31557600 light-seconds, since the definition of a year is based on a Julian year (not Gregorian year) of exactly 365.25 days, each of exactly 86400 SI seconds.[1]

Whereas a second is not defined by using measurement of length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[1]

So I stand on the definitions and not by rearrangement of the velocity equals distance over time formula.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Dec 30 2011, 09:42 PM)
So I stand on the definitions and not by rearrangement of the velocity equals distance over time formula.

The 3D 'physical' universe is a misconstrued concept, born from an average idiots cognitive reasoning ;- do you realize everything you see actually occurs in time dependant space?

Distance therefore is a mere illusion, created by mentally deficient types.

Robittybob1
QUOTE (Lady Elizabeth+Dec 30 2011, 10:23 PM)
The 3D 'physical' universe is a misconstrued concept, born from an average idiots cognitive reasoning ;- do you realize everything you see actually occurs in time dependant space?

Distance therefore is a mere illusion, created by mentally deficient types.

I don't know what you are talking about. But I am quite pleased to have distance between you and Granouille. Whether the distance is an illusion or not, it is the same illusion to me as it is to you.
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 30 2011, 04:01 PM)
This is why context/humour was invented. But will certain people take note of it? Nooooo....

Ah, all your nonsense was only humor, huh? Or is it just that idiots often laugh at their own nonsense? Either this is a cop out, or you're admitting to being a troll.
Guest_Granouille
QUOTE
I don't know what you are talking about. But I am quite pleased to have distance between you and Granouille.

You don't know what you are talking about either, but that hasn't stopped you yet, you fυcking idiot troll.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Guest_Granouille+Dec 31 2011, 12:21 AM)

You don't know what you are talking about either, but that hasn't stopped you yet, you fυcking idiot troll.

Blood sucker!
Guest
Fυckhead idiot troll. Mindless POS. Skin-bag full of cretinism and horrible diseases. Waste of carbon.

Screw you.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 31 2011, 12:44 AM)
Fυckhead idiot troll. Mindless POS. Skin-bag full of cretinism and horrible diseases. Waste of carbon.

Screw you.

Anti-Granouille
synthsin75
RC,

You have no idea what's going on because you don't understand the simplest things about physics. It is all just too far over your head. So much so that I know yet another correction of your mistakes would continue to go completely unheeded. You're just blithely unaware of your own ignorance, and to full of yourself to admit a need to learn.

synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 30 2011, 09:32 PM)

Peace.

.

Yes, I know you can't defend your ignorance.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 31 2011, 02:16 AM)

The fun started when LE gave a 'space' dimension example (intentionally?) in answer to albert2's request for a 'time' dimension example. The observation by me and the ensuing exchange between LE and Robbitybob1 kept the fun going. The invalidity of LE's initial answer to albert2's request was not denied by him once I and Robbitybob1 pointed it out, and thereafter LE himself went along with the humour and laughed along with us. It was no big deal. Only you missed the humorous aspect to the whole thing.

Lighten up.

.

@ least you're consistent .... a purely predictable fuckhead;- we 'know your number' and it's very, very ugly!
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 1 2012, 01:35 PM)
Shouldn't you two be getting busy setting science abuzz by providing your own insightful original 'pieces' to science's outstanding 'gaps' in the picture?

You mean like cranks like you do, spouting nonsense without bothering to ever connect to ANY evidence in the physical world? Nah. I'll wait until I've fully developed my ideas into something I can demonstrate the use for. I'm not so desperate for validation that I have to dupe people who come looking to learn something about physics like you do.
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 1 2012, 05:10 PM)
Mate, I am withdrawing from all internet forum discussion for at least an estimated couple of months to get my complete perspective ready for publication.

I want to leave you with the assurance that, despite everything, there are no hard feelings this end.

Good, a much deserved reprieve from your bullshit, especially for those actually seeking to learn something.

And I couldn't care less however you may feel about me.
AlexG
He's promised this before, and then he's back after a week or so.

brucep
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 1 2012, 07:35 PM)
.

Shouldn't you two be getting busy setting science abuzz by providing your own insightful original 'pieces' to science's outstanding 'gaps' in the picture?

.

Another childish attempt to claim you're actually doing something [solving the mystery of the universe] other than 'make believe' in public forums.
Pretend -> pretentious. You're delusional claims are just trolling for negative responses. At the least you're trolling me. You can whine about others treatment of you but you ask for it when you disrespect your own credibility.
AlexG
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 2 2012, 04:12 PM)
.

Hi AlexG.

Life is like that, mate. The best laid plans of mice and men, eh? I have been absent from internet forums many times since I joined. Sometimes for a YEAR. There are priorities which make the human condition full of uncertainties and changes.

However, just because one wishes to withdraw from discussions, it doesn't mean they are fair game for 'cheap shots' from those who are to immature/ungracious to allow such withdrawals without taunting and forcing return to point out the pettiness and immaturity behind such 'cheap shots'.

Cheers.

PS: Same goes for you, synthsin75. Bye!

.

RC, all you do is produce word salad.

QUOTE
In the mental health field, schizophasia, commonly referred to as word salad, is confused, and often repetitious, language that is symptomatic of various mental illnesses.

Confused and repetitious.

That's you to a tee, 'mate'.
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 2 2012, 03:12 PM)
Life is like that, mate. The best laid plans of mice and men, eh? I have been absent from internet forums many times since I joined. Sometimes for a YEAR. There are priorities which make the human condition full of uncertainties and changes.

However, just because one wishes to withdraw from discussions, it doesn't mean they are fair game for 'cheap shots' from those who are to immature/ungracious to allow such withdrawals without taunting and forcing return to point out the pettiness and immaturity behind such 'cheap shots'.

Man, is that a record? Not even a day has gone by since claiming to be done for a couple of months, and in three different threads at that. Ain't that always the problem with proclaiming a departure from a forum. That's why anyone with any sense knows you just don't do that.

Whinging about "cheap shots" is just an excuse to justify not being capable of sticking with what he said. "Taunting and forcing"? This is the anthem of the weak-willed. Responsible adults bear the onus of their own actions, regardless of provocation. If you say you are going to do something, you do it, if only to avoid allowing others to make a liar out of you.

"Make me return"? Apparently we're dealing with a 63 yr. old child here. Perhaps dementia is setting in.
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 2 2012, 10:08 PM)
Your pettiness continues. By your own admission elsewhere, you don't read all relevant posts from others. So you are ill-informed as to the full circumstances. I have explained that health/humanitarian absences/delays (sometimes for a whole year) have much affected adversly my own project/publishing efforts to date.

You are so intent on cheap shots that you don't care about all the facts. Is this petty spiteful uncaring attitude going to be the signature characteristic of your life/intellect in this new year and beyond? Sad.

You are just dragging me back with your personal agenda-driven drivel.

You should be better than that. Leave it and me go in peace. Bye for now.

.

Petty? Since when is it petty to expect others to simply do as they say? No one pressured you into saying you where going to quit posting, and no one has pressured you into continuing to post, dementia aside.

I never admitted to not reading "relevant" posts, and this is just one of your troll tactics you seem to like harping on. Just like every other troll, you take things out of context and twist them to seem as if they support whatever fabrication you are currently spinning.

No one gives a crap about your health, deeds, or projects, as by all indications these are all entirely mental/psychosomatic.

You're so intent on justifying yourself that you have actually upped your posting, rather than discontinuing, as you claimed. All what facts? As usual, you are spinning vague accusations. And why should I care the least little bit about you? You've done nothing that would ingratiate yourself to me, and quite the contrary, have been a complete nuisance.

No one is "dragging" you anyplace. You've just gotten stuck in a typical troll loop, where you endlessly have to justify your own nonsense with ever-increasing and ever more deluded pseudo-self-righteousness. Pseudo, as your true insecurity is plain to be seen.